 | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I almost fell outta my chair! If it was a type-o it's really funny. If it's intended, it's still equally as funny! Perfectly said, John! Dave K (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I'm afraid I let my personal feelings out a bit-- I'm still reeling from the news that the ACLU deciding to defend that Florida women who wants her driver's license photo ID taken with her veil on. We face more danger to our republic from our (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Hey, we have a situation in Toronto where a 10 year old girl disappeared and the next day was found in pieces in a bag on Toronto Island--the police wanted to take DNA samples of all previously convicted pedophiles in the area and some (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) Sorry' it's (URL) a Canadian thing and all... sorry for any confusion Dave K (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) I'm very glad the ACLU is there to take the case. I must say, I hope they lose, and I presume they will since a driver's license is not a right, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that they took the case. Without the ACLU, all we would (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Having an entity in theory such as the ACLU is probably a Good Thing®, but the extreme, agenda-driving wackos currently running it make it a liability. As you say, any idiot can see that this case has absolutely nothing to do with religious (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Hmmm, I find this a sticking point. I believe the right to travel by common conveyance is a right. If it were otherwise I'd be stuck at home unless I were willing to obtain whatever license is necessary to travel -- and then my right to travel (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Allow me to correct myself: a driver's license is specifically enumerated as not a right in California. Other states may be different, though I don't specically know of any that vary from that. The right to travel is in no way prohibited. You (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Please cite in the Constitution this "right". (...) Bus, train, taxi, airplane, unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, Segway; take your pick. (...) How about theft? (...) Yet another conspiracy? (...) Are you kidding me??? You are asking the state to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Totally on the same page with John--driving's a priviledge, not a right, and getting a drivers license, as it stands today in many areas, is getting your picture taken such that when and if (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
|
(...) Article 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights. Would they license a horse? Don't they license motorcycles and bikes? Aren't the roads called "rights of way." We all have the right to travel -- this was recognized as early as Magna Carta in the common (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
